This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
University of Northern Iowa University of Northern Iowa
UNI ScholarWorks UNI ScholarWorks
Honors Program Theses Honors Program
2010
Perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) on ethical Perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) on ethical
judgment and intention judgment and intention
Monica Marie Johnston University of Northern Iowa
Let us know how access to this document benefits you
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/hpt
Part of the Accounting Commons, and the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Johnston, Monica Marie, "Perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) on ethical judgment and intention" (2010). Honors Program Theses. 29. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/hpt/29
This Open Access Honors Program Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Program Theses by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Insignificant, or (1) Highly Insignificant. Question 11 is selected because of the relative balance
of subjects in High PIE (48) vs. Lower PIE (41) and because the statement itself is a good
representation of PIE.
Tests of Hypotheses
Hypothesis one states that perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) has an
impact on ethical judgment over and above the effect of moral intensity. That is, the more
ethically salient an individual perceives the experimental scenario to be (PIE) the more ethical a
judgment he/she will make in the process, beyond that explained by moral intensity. An
ANOVA using statement number 11 (PERPIE3) and moral intensity (MIHILOW) as
independent variables is used. Both moral intensity (F=3.42, p<.07) and PIE (F=5.04, p<.03)
[14]
have an impact on ethical judgment at p<.10. Further, contrast analyses indicate that PIE has an
impact on moral judgment (REST2) when moral intensity is high (t=2.23, p<.02). These results
show that PIE has an effect on ethical judgment over and above the impact of moral intensity on
judgment. However, when moral intensity is low, the impact of PIE is not significant (t=.50,
p<.31, see Table 4). A possible explanation for these results may be that an individual’s
perception of the importance of an ethical scenario (PIE) does not become a factor for making
ethical judgments until the issue becomes morally intense enough to be recognized as significant
or insignificant to the individual.
Hypothesis two states the perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) has an
impact on ethical intention over and above the impact of moral intensity. An ANOVA using
MIHILOW as an independent variable along with PIE indicates a positive effect for moral
intensity (MIHILOW F=10.1, p<.00) but no effect for PIE (PERPIE3 F=.07, p<.8, see Table 5).
Contrast analyses indicate that PIE has no impact on moral intention (REST3) when moral
intensity is high (t=.19, p<.43) or low (t=.19, p<.42). These results indicate that PIE has no effect
on ethical intentions, and therefore Hypothesis two is not supported. A possible reason for PIE
not having an impact on ethical intention may be found in the relationship of ethical judgment
and intention. As mentioned earlier, Rest (1986) feels that each stage of the decision-making
process is distinct and that a person with a well-developed sense of reasoning or judgment may
not necessarily intend to act morally. Jones (1991) postulates that a decision about what is
morally “correct” (judgment) is not the same as a decision to act (intent) based on the judgment.
Further, Haines et al. (2008) provide support that PIE is a causal variable preceding moral
judgment rather than directly influencing moral intent. After making an ethical judgment, one
must balance competing factors when determining intent (Guffey, et al. 2008). This means that
[15]
one may be willing to act unethically despite a personal judgment that an act is unethical. As
evidenced by the accounting frauds mentioned earlier, one may know that it is wrong to overstate
assets on a balance sheet, but may choose to overstate them despite this acknowledgment.
Hypothesis three states there is no difference in the ethical decision-making of female
accounting majors versus male accounting majors. As predicted, gender has no relationship on
either of the two stages of ethical decision-making presented in this study (ethical judgment or
intention). An ANOVA analysis of gender shows that no relationship exists between gender and
ethical judgment (F=.075. p<.785) or intentions (F=.494, p<.484). An additional ANOVA
analysis suggests that gender has no influence related to moral intensity (F=1.13, p<.30) or PIE
(F=.02, p<.90, see Table 10). These results indicate that the differences in the average of answers
given by males and females are not significant.
Conclusions, Limitations, and Implications for Future Research
The purpose of this study is to test the incremental impact of PIE on ethical judgment and
intention beyond that explained by moral intensity. In doing so it creates and tests a new ethical
scenario representing an ethical decision-making situation high in perceived importance to
college-aged subjects. PIE’s impact on ethical judgment, beyond the impact of moral intensity on
ethical judgment, is as hypothesized. However, the impact of PIE on ethical intentions does not
produce the anticipated results. As mentioned earlier, the manipulation of PIE in this research is
challenged. Accounting major subjects in this study considered both scenarios (high PIE vs. low
PIE) to be ethically salient. Pretesting would have allowed for the Facebook® scenario to be
retooled presenting an ethical dilemma higher in ethicality than the Stern Electronics scenario.
Thus it is possible that even though the data was partitioned into high PIE vs. lower PIE, that
difference was not substantial enough to correctly identify an impact of PIE on ethical intention.
[16]
It is interesting, however, that the partitioning into high vs. lower PIE was different enough to
discern the incremental impact of PIE on ethical judgment.
Another limitation is the lack of control over referent comparisons students’ might be
making in evaluating the ethical scenarios. As discussed, each student received only one
scenario, and therefore could not weight the severity or importance of their particular issue
against any of the other manipulated scenarios when responding. Providing a base-line neutral
ethical situation might have helped align respondents reactions to the subsequent high
(Facebook®) vs. low (Stern Electronics) ethical situations.
This study is admittedly limited in terms of scope. The sample population includes only
subjects from one Midwestern university and includes mostly subjects of Caucasian descent
raised in the Midwest. It is possible that students with different backgrounds and cultural
upbringings would view the scenarios in different ways. Additionally, there is a possibility that a
difference in ethical decision-making will be found when using professionals, whether they are
in the accounting field or not. It may also be interesting to include individuals with no college
degree at all. Similarly, analyzing differences in age may highlight any generational differences
that exist between subjects. An additional item that could prove useful in an analysis is whether
or not the student has any prior exposure to an ethics education course, as this may provide
insight into the effectiveness of classroom ethics training.
As with all behavioral research using experimentation, the subjects are acting within an
artificial setting. Many of the situational pressures and distractions present in a real world
context are not present. Responses may also be influenced by social desirability, meaning that
subjects respond in a manner to which they might be expected. There is also no attempt to
measure actual ethical behavior/action. To do so might encourage an individual to act in an
[17]
unethical manner. A presumption made in this research, in line with previous ethics research, is
that ethical judgment and intent are significant to the determination of appropriate behavior
(Jones, 1991; Robin et al. 1996; Guffey, et al. 2008; Haines et al. 2008). Additional research that
investigates actual behavior would make significant contributions to this area. It is difficult to
determine how an individual will act without allowing them to actually do so.
Additionally, statements or questions could be added at the end of the scenarios that ask
the subjects to make decisions about moral intensity components. For example, the statement
“How likely would you be to refrain from the action if the expected losses were only 5% instead
of 10%” would be a possible way of exploring the variation of a moral intensity component in
place of manipulating a number in the scenario itself. The same could be done for the PIE
parameters. For example, the statement “I believe Paul’s behavior in the above scenario would
be more important if…” would allow the researcher to insert an additional situation, thereby
allowing the individual to make a comparison.
The findings above add to existing business ethics literature. Specifically, the Facebook®
scenario and the manipulations of moral intensity components within all scenarios are unique to
this study. Though previous studies consider both moral intensity and PIE, actual testing
considers only PIE or moral intensity. This study tests moral intensity and PIE together for the
first time. Additionally, the findings contribute to previous studies of the ethical decision-making
process directed specifically at accounting students as very few previous studies focus on PIE
and moral intensity as related to accounting students. Ethical accounting professionals are
significant to accurate financial reporting, and failure in this area leads to significant financial
and other losses. The only way to improve understanding of why and how accountants make
[18]
ethical decisions in a business context is by continued research, and this study provides a
framework by which future research may be conducted.
[19]
Appendix A
Table 1: Moral Intensity Components Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.650 5
[20]
Table 2: PERPIE3 and MIHILOW for Ethical Judgment
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable:Ethical Judgment
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 26.976a 3 8.992 4.109 .009
Intercept 2045.763 1 2045.763 934.826 .000
PERPIE3 7.472 1 7.472 3.415 .068
MIHILOW 11.041 1 11.041 5.045 .027
PERPIE3 *
MIHILOW
2.598 1 2.598 1.187 .279
Error 186.013 85 2.188
Total 2428.000 89
Corrected Total 212.989 88
a. R Squared = .127 (Adjusted R Squared = .096)
[21]
Table 3: High Moral Intensity and PERPIE3 for Ethical Judgment
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Ethical
Judgment
Equal
variances
assumed
4.418 .041 2.231 43 .031 .946 .424 .091 1.801
Equal
variances
not
assumed
2.060 24.708 .050 .946 .459 -.001 1.893
[22]
Table 4: Low Moral Intensity and PERPIE3 for Ethical Judgment
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Ethical
Judgment
Equal
variances
assumed
2.407 .128 .504 42 .617 .244 .484 -.733 1.221
Equal
variances
not
assumed
.491 34.333 .627 .244 .498 -.767 1.255
[23]
Table 5: PERPIE3 and MIHILOW for Ethical Intention
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable:Ethical Intentions
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 30.083a 3 10.028 3.711 .015
Intercept 1646.041 1 1646.041 609.134 .000
PERPIE3 .194 1 .194 .072 .789
MIHILOW 27.349 1 27.349 10.121 .002
PERPIE3 *
MIHILOW
2.660E-5 1 2.660E-5 .000 .998
Error 229.692 85 2.702
Total 2004.000 89
Corrected Total 259.775 88
a. R Squared = .116 (Adjusted R Squared = .085)
[24]
Table 6: High Moral Intensity and PERPIE3 for Ethical Intention Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Ethical
Intentions
Equal
variances
assumed
.441 .510 .186 43 .853 .097 .520 -.952 1.146
Equal
variances
not
assumed
.199 37.011 .844 .097 .488 -.892 1.086
[25]
Table 7: Low Moral Intensity and PERPIE3 for Ethical Intention
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t Df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Ethical
Intentions
Equal
variances
assumed
1.394 .244 .193 42 .848 .095 .492 -.898 1.088
Equal
variances
not
assumed
.189 36.153 .851 .095 .501 -.920 1.110
[26]
Table 8: Ethical Judgment and Intention by Gender ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Ethical Judgment Between Groups .187 1 .187 .075 .785
Within Groups 209.813 84 2.498
Total 210.000 85
Ethical Intentions Between Groups 1.505 1 1.505 .494 .484
Within Groups 255.704 84 3.044
Total 257.209 85
[27]
Table 9: MIHILOW by Gender
ANOVA
Moral intensity high/low
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .284 1 .284 1.125 .292
Within Groups 21.204 84 .252
Total 21.488 85
[28]
Table 10: PERPIE3 by Gender
ANOVA
Perceived Importance
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .013 1 .013 .016 .899
Within Groups 69.475 84 .827
Total 69.488 85
[29]
Appendix B
The following instructions preceded each scenario:
Please read the following brief scenario and then answer the questions which follow. Thank you
for your participation. You should circle the answer you feel most appropriately represents your
feelings about the statement. Some brief demographic questions are presented at the end of the
instrument.
Stern Electronics Scenario – Low Moral Intensity
Paul Tate is the assistant controller at Stern Electronics, a medium-sized manufacturer of electrical equipment, wholly owned by a parent corporation based in the Netherlands (multiple shareholders). Paul is in his late fifties and plans to retire soon. His daughter has been accepted into medical school, and financial concerns are weighing heavily on his mind. Paul’s boss (Controller) is out of the office recuperating from health problems, and in his absence Paul is making all decisions for the department. Paul receives a phone call from an old friend requesting a sizable amount of equipment on credit for a new business. Paul is sympathetic but cognizant of the risk of extending credit to a new company, especially under Stern's parent company’s strict new credit policies. When Paul mentions this conversation to the Director of Finance, the Director is immediately interested. The Finance Director notes that the company needs an additional $250,000 in sales to meet the quarterly budget and thus ensure bonuses for management, including Paul. The Finance Director also notes that if the new company defaults on payment of the equipment, it’s likely to be over a year before the problem is uncovered by Stern’s auditors. After some analysis, Paul determines there is only a 10% chance that extending credit to his friend will result in a default on payment. If it does happen, however, it’s predicted that bad debt will amount to 20% of the total sale. After discretely asking around, Paul finds about other individuals in the firm that have extended credit to risky customers to ensure short-term sales.
Stern Electronics Scenario – High Moral Intensity
Paul Tate is the assistant controller at Stern Electronics, a medium-sized manufacturer of electrical equipment, owned locally and solely by its Chief Operating Officer (COO). Paul is in his late fifties and plans to retire soon. His daughter has been accepted into medical school, and financial concerns are weighing heavily on his mind. Paul’s boss (Controller) is out of the office recuperating from health problems, and in his absence Paul is making all decisions for the department. Paul receives a phone call from an old friend requesting a sizable amount of equipment on credit for a new business. Paul is sympathetic but cognizant of the risk of extending credit to a new company, especially under their owner/COO’s strict new credit policies. When Paul mentions this conversation to the Director of Finance, the Director is immediately interested. The Finance Director notes that the company needs an additional $250,000 in sales to meet the quarterly budget and thus ensure bonuses for management, including Paul. The Finance Director also notes that if the new company defaults on payment of the equipment, it’s likely to be in the next quarter before the problem is uncovered by Stern’s auditors. After some analysis, Paul determines there is a 60% chance that extending credit to his friend will result in a default on payment. If it does happen, however, it’s predicted that bad debt will amount to 70% of the total sale. After discretely asking around, Paul finds out that no other individuals in the firm have extended credit to risky customers to ensure short-term sales.
[30]
Action: Paul decides to make the sale to his friend's new business. Please evaluate his
actions. 1. Paul should not do the proposed action. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
2. If I were Paul, I would make the same decision. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
3. I believe Paul’s behavior in the above scenario is: Extremely Important Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Unimportant. Extremely Important Important Unimportant Unimportant
4. The overall harm (if any) done as a result of Paul’s action would be very small. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
5. Most people would agree that Paul’s action is wrong. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
6. There is a very small likelihood that Paul’s action will actually cause any harm. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
7. To me, the issue discussed in the above scenario is of: Considerable Concern Somewhat Neutral Somewhat No Concern Considerably Concern of concern of no concern of no concern 8. Paul’s action will not cause any harm in the immediate future. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
9. The distance between Paul and the owner of Stern Electronics is close. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
10. Paul’s action will harm very few people (if any) Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
11. I believe Paul’s behavior in the above scenario is: Highly Insignificant Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Significant Extremely Insignificant Insignificant Significant Significant
[31]
12. To me, the issue discussed in the above scenario is of: Fundamentally No Issue Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Issue Fundamental of No Issue of no issue of issue Issue 13. The situation above involves an ethical dilemma. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
14. I am: (circle one) Male Female 15. My major is: (circle one) a. Accounting b. Finance c. Other business d. Other non-business 16. My overall GPA is: a. 3.5-4.0 b. 3.0-3.49 c. 2.5-2.99 d. 2.0-2.49 e. Lower than a 2.0
[32]
Facebook® Scenario – Low Moral Intensity
Nate Johnson is an intern at Lawson, Fredericks & Anderson LLP, a medium-sized CPA firm. Nate is nearing the end of a four-month, positive internship experience and is enjoying a moment, after a hard days work, with various senior staff and managers from his firm. Nate is aware that his ability to interact socially with his future co-workers is as important to them as his knowledge of accounting. At the conclusion of the internship, fulltime offers will be made to top performers who fit in well with the firm. Soon, the lighthearted talk turns to a discussion of a post busy season office party last year where members of a university’s student accounting organization from another state had interacted with some individuals from the firm. Apparently things had gotten a little wild which always seems to be the case with this school’s accounting student group. Nate actually is aware of this school’s accounting group’s reputation, and knows that the group’s official Facebook® profile holds a number of incriminating and potentially damaging pictures of its members. Nate knows this because he is an official Facebook® ‘friend’ of this group which allows him access to their postings. Unexpectedly, one of the senior managers tells Nate that if the questionable moral allegations against the school’s accounting group are true, the firm is going to cease recruiting at that university. A number of this school’s group members are up for consideration for the firm’s Summer Leadership Program in the following school year. The senior manager then asks Nate if he could pull up the group’s Facebook® profile so they could check out the pictures and postings of the group. There is about a 10% chance the pictures from the Facebook® profile will have a negative impact on the reputation of the school’s program. But if they do, members of the school will not be considered for next year’s Summer Leadership Program. Nate remembers conversations with friends who have told him they have been asked to show friends’ Facebook® profiles many times for firms they’ve worked for, and they’ve done it.
Facebook® Scenario – High Moral Intensity
Nate Johnson is an intern at Lawson, Fredericks & Anderson LLP, a medium-sized CPA firm. Nate is nearing the end of a four-month, positive internship experience and is enjoying a moment, after a hard days work, with various senior staff and managers from his firm. Nate is aware that his ability to interact socially with his future co-workers is as important to them as his knowledge of accounting. At the conclusion of the internship, fulltime offers will be made to top performers who fit in well with the firm. Soon, the lighthearted talk turns to a discussion of a recent evening after work, when a friend of Nate’s from his school, also serving as an intern, got pretty wild with some members of the firm. Nate actually is aware of his friend’s wild reputation and knows that her official Facebook® profile holds a number of incriminating and potentially damaging pictures of her. Nate knows this because he is an official Facebook® ‘friend’ of this young woman, which allows him access to her postings. Unexpectedly, one of the senior managers tells Nate that if questionable moral allegations made against this young woman are true, the firm is not going to hire her for a fulltime position. The senior manager then asks Nate if he could pull up the individual’s Facebook® profile so they could check out her pictures and postings. There is about a 60% chance the pictures from Facebook® will have a negative impact on Nate’s friend. If they do, she will not be offered a fulltime position with the firm which is to start next month. Nate remembers conversations with friends who have told him they have been asked to show friends’ Facebook® profiles many times for firms they’ve worked for, and they’ve never done it.
[33]
Action: Nate decides to show the Facebook® profile to his senior manager. Please evaluate
his actions. 1. Nate should not do the proposed action. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
2. If I were Nate, I would make the same decision. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
3. I believe Nate’s behavior in the above scenario is: Extremely Important Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Unimportant. Extremely Important Important Unimportant Unimportant
4. The overall harm (if any) done as a result of Nate’s action would be very small. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
5. Most people would agree that Nate’s action is wrong. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
6. There is a very small likelihood that Nate’s action will actually cause any harm. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
7. To me, the issue discussed in the above scenario is of: Considerable Concern Somewhat Neutral Somewhat No Concern Considerably Concern of concern of no concern of no concern
8. Nate’s action will not cause any harm in the immediate future. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
9. The distance between Nate and the owner of Stern Electronics is close. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
10. Nate’s action will harm very few people (if any) Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree
11. I believe Nate’s behavior in the above scenario is: Highly Insignificant Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Significant Extremely Insignificant Insignificant Significant Significant
[34]
12. To me, the issue discussed in the above scenario is of: Fundamentally No Issue Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Issue Fundamental of No Issue of no issue of issue Issue
14. I am: (circle one) Male Female 15. My major is: (circle one) a. Accounting b. Finance c. Other business d. Other non-business 16. My overall GPA is: a. 3.5-4.0 b. 3.0-3.49 c. 2.5-2.99 d. 2.0-2.49 e. Lower than a 2.0
[35]
Appendix C
Moral Intensity Manipulations
Stern Electronics Facebook®
High Low High Low
Magnitude of Consequences
Bad debts from default are 70% of sale
Bad debts from default are 20% of sale
Loss of full-time job
Loss of leadership position
Social Consensus
No other individuals in the firm have extended credit to risky customers to ensure short-term sales
Other individuals in the firm have extended credit to risky customers to ensure short-term sales
No other friends have shown Facebook®
profiles to
internship
employers
Other friends have shown Facebook®
profiles to
internship
employers
Probability of Effect
60% chance of default on payment
10% chance of default on payment
60% chance pictures will have negative impact
10% chance picture will have negative impact
Temporal Immediacy
Default likely to be discovered next quarter
Default likely to be discovered in over a year
Firm placement next month
Firm placement next year
Proximity* Victim is COO of Stern, located in town
Victim is parent company, located in Netherlands
Individual is from own school
Individual is from school in other state
Concentration of Effect
Victim is sole owner
Victims are multiple shareholders
Individual involved in hiring decision
Accounting group involved in hiring decision
*Proximity was excluded from the interpretation of the results due to error discovered after administration.
[36]
References
Abdolmohammadi, M., Read, W., & Scarbrough, P. (2003). Does selection-socialization help to
explain accountants' weak ethical reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics,42(1), 71-81.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2009). Retrieved October 14, 2010, from
AICPA Code of Professional Conduct: http://www.aicpa.org
Arlow, P., & Ulrich, T. A. (1983). Can ethics be taught to business students? The Collegiate
Forum, 17.
Armstrong, M. (1987). Moral development and accounting education. Journal of Accounting
Education,5(1), 27-43.
Baird, J. E., Zelin, R. C., & Brennan, P. J. (2006). Academic major, gender, personal values, and
reactions to an ethical dilemma. Journal of Business Case Studies, 2(2)73-82.
Barnett, T. (2001). Dimensions of moral intensity and ethical decision making: An empirical
study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,31(5), 1038–1057.
Barnett, T., & Valentine, S. (2004). Issue contingencies and marketers' recognition of ethical
issues, ethical judgments and behavioral intentions . Journal of Business Research,57(4), 338-
346.
Cherrington, J. O., & Cherrington, D. J. (1979). Honesty and business ethics in the accounting
profession. Collected Papers of the American Accounting Association's Annual Meeting, 645-
658.
Dubinsky, A., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of
Business Research, 19(2), 83-107.
Ferrell, O., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical
Decision Making in Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 87-96.
Flory, S., Phillips, T., Reidenbach, E., & Robin, D. (1992). A Multidimensional Analysis of
Selected Ethical Issues in Accounting. The Accounting Review, 67(2), 284-302.
Frey, B. F. (2000). Investigating moral intensity with the world-wide web: A look at participant
reactions and a comparison of methods. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments &
Computers,32(3), 423-431.
Fulmer, W. E., & Cargile, B. R. (1987). Ethical perceptions of accounting students: Does
exposure to a code of professional ethics help? Issues in Accounting Education,2(2), 207-209.
[37]
Garson, G. D. (2010, January 30). Reliability analysis. Retrieved September 2010, from NC
State University, College of Humanities and Social Sciences: